5 minutes ago, Jai Dee said:

 

The latest ratings on IMDB are even higher... 

 

 

Actually, that's a bit lower, but I thought it was pretty stupid. Like it was for kids. 

Saw the author of The Perfect Storm in an interview and decided to download it for a watch. Still entertaining and very watchable. Then I remembered The Abyss and watched it too. Highly recommend both.

3 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Saw the author of The Perfect Storm in an interview and decided to download it for a watch. Still entertaining and very watchable. Then I remembered The Abyss and watched it too. Highly recommend both.

Yeah, I watched "Perfect Storm" again about a year ago, it held up well. 

 

"Man on Fire" is another I have watched a few times. 

 

I've just finished season 1 of Sugar and enjoyed it. It was recommended by @Will27 and mentioned by a few other posters. It's on TGx.

11 hours ago, giddyup said:

Civil War - barely watchable, Atlas - fergetaboudit.

Just finished "Atlas", pretty painful. 

 

I thought Jennifer Lopez was terrible, and who told her she still looks good in spandex? 

i just found this today. "Unreported World"... many interesting documentaries and they are on youtube. today i watched one about north korea and it was very interesting.

 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Unreported+World

On 5/22/2024 at 3:09 PM, Jai Dee said:

 

It has just been released digitally and is available today at most of the usual sources.

 

Just watch it. Great popcorn flick. Always watch the credits, which on this movie copies the Jackie Chan end credits showing the stunts from behind the camera.

Recognised the name Hannah Waddingham but couldn't place her (old age creeping in), then clicked, Tonya Dyke from Benidorm.

4 hours ago, RayWright said:

Recognised the name Hannah Waddingham but couldn't place her (old age creeping in), then clicked, Tonya Dyke from Benidorm.

Rebecca Welton from Ted Lasso 🙂 

On 5/24/2024 at 4:24 PM, johng said:

I'm watching Star Trek the original series and its much better than I remember it as a kid..the

Spock, Kirk, Mccoy interactions are  quite funny at times (special mention Scotty,Uhura and Chekov) the technologies imagined and special effects are IMHO "ahead of their time". (well they would be)

I'm sort of a Star Trek fan. The recent offerings have been lackluster at best. Picard was unnecessary (to be kind), Star Trek Strange New Worlds was a little better, had much of the original Star Trek feel, but it doesn't really seem to know what it wants to do with itself. Discovery was the biggest disappointment. I found the first two seasons unwatchable. But they managed to right the ship and the last two seasons, particularly the one now ongoing, have been quite entertaining.

8 hours ago, RayWright said:

Just watch it. Great popcorn flick. Always watch the credits, which on this movie copies the Jackie Chan end credits showing the stunts from behind the camera.

Recognised the name Hannah Waddingham but couldn't place her (old age creeping in), then clicked, Tonya Dyke from Benidorm.

Yeah I thought it was pretty good too, but it took a while to get going. 

26 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

I'm sort of a Star Trek fan. The recent offerings have been lackluster at best. Picard was unnecessary (to be kind), Star Trek Strange New Worlds was a little better, had much of the original Star Trek feel, but it doesn't really seem to know what it wants to do with itself. Discovery was the biggest disappointment. I found the first two seasons unwatchable. But they managed to right the ship and the last two seasons, particularly the one now ongoing, have been quite entertaining.

What Discovery concerns is it for me the other way around, 1st 2 seasons ok but then the woke S$%t went into the extreme ... Hope season 5 will be better again.

53 minutes ago, Henk Langeweg said:

What Discovery concerns is it for me the other way around, 1st 2 seasons ok but then the woke S$%t went into the extreme ... Hope season 5 will be better again.

They've been dialing down the wokeness though and transitioning to a more collaborative approach, in the classic Star Trek syle, rather than focusing so much on Burnham. They did bring Ensign Tilly back in Season 5 which, IMHO, was a mistake.

 

Ironically, although this is supposed to be set 1000 years in the future, nothing much has changed in the human condition.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah I thought it was pretty good too, but it took a while to get going. 

Watched nearly half before I gave it away, so not sure when it "got going".

Watched The War of the Worlds recently. English and French production so English subtitles when the French speak.

Tense and thrilling. Be warned, the aliens kill everyone, whatever the age.

P.S. Gabriel Byrne is excellent.

I just started Rebus. While I have like the first two episodes, and can accept Richard Rankin (no relation to Ian, he plays Roget in Outlander by the way) as Rebus, even though he doesn't really fit the character portrayed in the books, is no one going to mention the elephant in the room: The character of Siobahn Clarke? This is one of the most fundamental relationships in the later books and I just wish that had found an actor who better embodied her character. I guess Ian Rankin must have signed off on it though since he is an executive producer.

14 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

I just started Rebus. While I have like the first two episodes, and can accept Richard Rankin (no relation to Ian, he plays Roget in Outlander by the way) as Rebus, even though he doesn't really fit the character portrayed in the books, is no one going to mention the elephant in the room: The character of Siobahn Clarke? This is one of the most fundamental relationships in the later books and I just wish that had found an actor who better embodied her character. I guess Ian Rankin must have signed off on it though since he is an executive producer.

The series isn't a patch on the books, it's watchable but forgettable.

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

The series isn't a patch on the books, it's watchable but forgettable.

Apparently, this version of Siobhan Clarke is also a lesbian. Well, why not? Honestly, why make a film version of an iconic book series if you don't care about portrying it at least somewhat accurately.

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Apparently, this version of Siobhan Clarke is also a lesbian. Well, why not? Honestly, why make a film version of an iconic book series if you don't care about portrying it at least somewhat accurately.

The series is Rebus in name only. If it was called Flatfoot or something  similar there would be absolutely no way it would be linked to the Rebus books.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:36 PM, jaywalker2 said:

I just started Rebus. While I have like the first two episodes, and can accept Richard Rankin (no relation to Ian, he plays Roget in Outlander by the way) as Rebus, even though he doesn't really fit the character portrayed in the books, is no one going to mention the elephant in the room: The character of Siobahn Clarke? This is one of the most fundamental relationships in the later books and I just wish that had found an actor who better embodied her character. I guess Ian Rankin must have signed off on it though since he is an executive producer.

I'm currently watching Rebus and it is enjoyable IMHO. I haven't read any of the Rebus books.

2 hours ago, Mutt Daeng said:

I'm currently watching Rebus and it is enjoyable IMHO. I haven't read any of the Rebus books.

Well, I'm happy for you then. If you were a loyal fan of the books this series would be equivalent to a remake of the Bible with Moses as a feisty drag queen leading his people to the Promised Land of Woke.

4 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Well, I'm happy for you then. If you were a loyal fan of the books this series would be equivalent to a remake of the Bible with Moses as a feisty drag queen leading his people to the Promised Land of Woke.

I enjoyed it as well.

 

Lucky it's not compulsory to watch I guess.

40 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I enjoyed it as well.

 

Lucky it's not compulsory to watch I guess.

Here's a quote from George Martin:

George R.R. Martin calls out producers and screenwriters who change things from the books "Everywhere you look, there are more screenwriters and producers eager to take great stories and “make them their own.” It does not seem to matter whether the source material was written by Stan Lee ... Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain ... Jane Austen, or… well, anyone.  No matter how major a writer it is, no matter how great the book, there always seems to be someone on hand who thinks he can do better, eager to take the story and “improve” on it.   “The book is the book, the film is the film,” they will tell you, as if they were saying something profound. Then they make the story their own. They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse"

What's the fun in seeing a movie which is exactly the same as the book which you have read already?

13 minutes ago, Henk Langeweg said:

What's the fun in seeing a movie which is exactly the same as the book which you have read already?

What's the point in making a movie or TV series with the same name but totally different from the book? It's just cashing in on the reputation of the writer or his work.

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Here's a quote from George Martin:

George R.R. Martin calls out producers and screenwriters who change things from the books "Everywhere you look, there are more screenwriters and producers eager to take great stories and “make them their own.” It does not seem to matter whether the source material was written by Stan Lee ... Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain ... Jane Austen, or… well, anyone.  No matter how major a writer it is, no matter how great the book, there always seems to be someone on hand who thinks he can do better, eager to take the story and “improve” on it.   “The book is the book, the film is the film,” they will tell you, as if they were saying something profound. Then they make the story their own. They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse"

They simply buy the rights to the book, to avoid being sued in the future.  Bean counter probably figured out it's cheaper, especially if it's a box office hit.

54 minutes ago, giddyup said:

What's the point in making a movie or TV series with the same name but totally different from the book? It's just cashing in on the reputation of the writer or his work.

So, the writer is to blame because he/she has to agree with the movie script, right?

Btw. Is a movie not always different from the book, the book is interpreted by your minds fantasy while the movie let's no room to fantasize ...

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Here's a quote from George Martin:

George R.R. Martin calls out producers and screenwriters who change things from the books "Everywhere you look, there are more screenwriters and producers eager to take great stories and “make them their own.” It does not seem to matter whether the source material was written by Stan Lee ... Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Ursula K. Le Guin, J.R.R. Tolkien, Mark Twain ... Jane Austen, or… well, anyone.  No matter how major a writer it is, no matter how great the book, there always seems to be someone on hand who thinks he can do better, eager to take the story and “improve” on it.   “The book is the book, the film is the film,” they will tell you, as if they were saying something profound. Then they make the story their own. They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse"

If you haven't read the book, it doesn't really matter.

 

35 minutes ago, Will27 said:

If you haven't read the book, it doesn't really matter.

 

It does, because you don't see the better movie you could have IF it weren't diminished by lesser minds, nowadays often for political reasons.

 

They never make it better, though. Nine hundred ninety-nine times out of a thousand, they make it worse.

53 minutes ago, Henk Langeweg said:

So, the writer is to blame because he/she has to agree with the movie script, right?

Btw. Is a movie not always different from the book, the book is interpreted by your minds fantasy while the movie let's no room to fantasize ...

 I know the author has to sign off on the book, but I'm not sure how much input he/she has as far as keeping the storyline true to the original.

I just had a look and generally an author has little or no input into the making of the film of their book. Maybe some authors like JK Rowling or Stephen King can wield a bigger stick.

19 minutes ago, giddyup said:

 I know the author has to sign off on the book, but I'm not sure how much input he/she has as far as keeping the storyline true to the original.

I just had a look and generally an author has little or no input into the making of the film of their book. Maybe some authors like JK Rowling or Stephen King can wield a bigger stick.

I don't blame Ian Rankin. The guy's 64, he probably needs to fund his retirement.

 

2 hours ago, Henk Langeweg said:

What's the fun in seeing a movie which is exactly the same as the book which you have read already?

Did you watch Game of Thrones? One of the best series in the history of TV because it followed the books faithfully (until that disasterous final season)